Personal cleaning is first recorded on ancient tablets from Sumeria as part of religious ritual. While evidence of soaps have been found in Babylon and Egypt from approximately 2,800 BCE, it is conjectured that these were most likely used for cleaning materials such as fabrics. It was quite a time after that soaps were effective and in widespread use for cleaning the human body. In this interim time, a device known as a strigil was developed presumably by the Greeks. Few writings exist from the time, but strigil artifacts have been found from sites dating from the 6th century BCE.
The strigil was a curved blade of metal that was used to scrape against the skin. A mixture of olive oil and sand (or sometimes pumice or ash) was rubbed into the skin and the strigil was then used to scrape the skin clean. This was an effective exfoliant as it not only removed sweat and dirt but also removed dead skin and opened up pores. It is unknown if they were used by the masses, as writings and sculptures were not focused on the mass public. Strigil use was commonly associated with athletes, such as wrestlers. One of the most renown early images of the strigil in use is the sculpture Apoxyomenos by Lysippus in the Vatican created in ˜330 BCE.
The Romans adopted and continued the use of the strigil as an integral routine of the Roman baths. Accounts of the strigil in the baths date to the 1st century BCE, where it was commonly used to condition the skin prior to entering the waters. Galen (130ACE-˜200), a prolific Greek physician/philosopher, wrote extensively about the strigil and its beneficial uses, as a skin conditioning and cleansing device.
In George Cheyne's 1754 writing, “An Essay of Health and Long Life”, a new term is noted, that of a Flesh Brush. While it contained the word brush, it probably did not contain bristles similar to today's brushes. It was more likely resembled an ancient strigil, since in his writings, it is synonymous with an animal curry comb. These writings still portray the device as beneficial to human health. At this point, bristled brushes were still a rarity. The first hair brush manufacturer is believed to be Kent Brushes, which was formed in 1777. These were at the time very expensive items, and it took as many as 12 workers to complete one brush.
In MacMicking's 1851 work “Recollections of Manilla and the Philippines”, the author mentions bathing with soap and a flesh-brush. In this case, bristles are mentioned. It is assumed by this point that the term flesh brush has morphed or is in the presence of morphing from that of a bladed instrument to one with bristles. By the 1880s and 1890s, patents were appearing in the US Patent Office for flesh brushes. These depicted brushes with bristles and were widely referenced in the art.
Today, the term flesh brush has fallen into disuse. Brushes that accomplish the same purpose, that of deep skin cleaning and exfoliation, are termed body brushes and facial brushes. Early powered brushes for skin treatment are taught by Friedmann U.S. Pat. No. 3,272,200 and Shjoi U.S. Pat. No. 3,906,940. With the advent of batteries as a popular power source, these powered brushes surface again to become hand-held items. Abura U.S. Pat. No. 4,203,431 demonstrates this. These brushes taught rotational motion, but other motions such as oscillating (Pilcher U.S. Pat. No. 7,320,691) and combination movements (Gutelius U.S. Pat. No. 6,253,405) are also taught in the prior art.
As opposed to hair brushes and barber dust off brushes, which are generally used dry, these body and facial brushes are intended to be used with cleansers and in a wet state. Many are completely waterproof and are used while bathing. Because of their closely residing tufts of bristles, the brush heads can retain water, as well as skin particles, bodily fluids, and pathogens. This was not a problem with the strigil. It contained no bristles and dried quickly. Since current body and facial brushes remain wet for a significant amount of time after usage, they can be a breeding ground for a broad range of fungal, bacterial, parasitic, and viral agents. While the epidermis is generally a very good defender against such maladies, the very purpose of these brushes is to abrade the skin. This can subject the user to a variety of maladies including: dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, cold sores, necrotizing fasciitis, cellulites, infectious myositis, etc.
The brush head can also act as a fomite and repeatedly carry pathogens, such as germs, to expose the solitary user or, if the device is shared, from one individual to another. None of the current powered facial brushes offer cover or sterilize the brush head in order to make sure that it is kept clean and ready in between use. This leaves it exposed to the environment. As this is left to the discretion of the user, it can be especially problematic due to the popular location of the device, namely, the bathroom. This environment typically has many sources of water flow (e.g. sinks, showers, toilets and bathtubs). These water sources aerosolize water droplets. The water droplets can transport other elements such as urine, feces, and saliva throughout the bathroom. They can also be exposed to airborne chemical pollutants from aerosols, such deodorants or air fresheners commonly used within the contained environment of the bathroom. Since the bristles are exposed to this environment, they can become inadvertently contaminated. If the brush head is not stored and cleaned correctly, it not only negates the benefits of its use, it can cause new problems like infections by carrying bacteria to the skin. This could aggravate the preconditions it was originally designed to solve.